Resist-Reclaim-Restore: Militarism No More

Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

As one of those fortunate enough to attend the Nobel Women’s Initiative
gathering, 'Redefining Democracy for Peace', I’m filled with hope for
how women’s leadership can help pave the way for a more peaceful and
sustainable future that is free from the prevailing ideology of
militarism. For far too long, world leaders have accepted the logic of
using military intervention or violence as the most effective way to
resolve conflict. The past century and the first decade of the 21st
century have been marked by bloody military conflicts. Whether in
contesting differences in political ideology, in facing different
religions, or in dividing natural resources, nation states have not
only condoned, but also glorified the use of violence to maintain law
and order, defend their boundaries, protect their sovereignty, and
exercise their dominance over others.

The costs of this
approach to conflict resolution are not just measured in the
appallingly high figures of those killed and wounded, but in the fact
that violence rarely, if ever, succeeds in ensuring justice or peace.
Instead, we have learned by experience what Gandhi so wisely warned us
when he said, “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”.

In modern times, nation states have witnessed how the logic of
militarism has been turned against them as resistance movements forgo
peaceful civil disobedience, which is invariably met with overwhelming
state violence. Instead, minority groups, ethnic communities and
nationalist movements, in the struggle for self-determination, voice,
and freedom, have consciously chosen to do as nation states do,
rather than what they say. From the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers to
Hezbollah in Lebanon, to militias in the wars in Sierra Leone, Liberia,
Somalia and the Congo, violence and the use of arms has become the
preferred option of resistance movements. Over the past ten years, such
armed resistance to nation states has been labelled as “terrorist”, as
though the brutal actions of state military forces create no terror in
civilian populations.

Despite some efforts by the world
community to hold militarism in check, the use of violence and armed
forces, both by state and by non-state actors has continued to
escalate. The production and sale of weapons, such as nuclear arms,
landmines, and chemical weapons, but also handguns, assault rifles,
automatic weapons and other lethal instruments of death constitute a
huge and profitable industry which accounts for a significant portion
of the world’s trade. From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France
earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they
gave in aid. Again, the contradictions are stark: consider this from Shattered Lives,
a report by the control arms campaign, "the five permanent members of
the UN Security Council together account for 88% of the world’s
conventional arms exports; and these exports contribute regularly to
gross abuses of human rights".

Militarism does not just
result in direct harm to the victims of violence, be they civilians,
military forces, or militia groups. Rather, it is a system that
prioritizes investments in military forces, weapons, and activity over
any other kind of investment, thus it actively impedes and blocks
progress towards democratization and sustainable development. In 2007,
nation states invested a staggering US $1,339 billion worldwide in
military budgets: nearly US $4 billion per day. Although the U.S.
accounts for nearly half of global military spending, developing
countries have been devoting more of their limited budgets on the
military. In 2008, Pakistan
spent $4.4 billion on its military budget, or 4.5% of its GDP, and in
Africa, which has the world’s highest HIV rates with one in eight
afflicted, spent $7.7 billion on the military. In contrast, Costa Rica,
which abolished its army in 1949, spends one fourth of its budget on
education, and this, combined with a thriving health sector, has
engendered life expectancy rates comparable to the West.

The
United Nations spends about $20 billion each year, just 1.5% of the
world’s military expenditure, which currently is at $202 for each
person in the world. Yet for nearly two decades, theUN’s persistent
budget shortfall has forced it to cut back on all major program areas.
And, the future does not look promising. According to a 2008 National Intelligence Council
report of the U.S. government, “the world will be likely more tense and
unstable by 2025 with increased potential for conflict” due to scarcity
of resources like food, fossil fuels, and water, widening inequality,
and the uneven impacts of climate change.

These are the harsh
realities that catalyzed the creation of the Nobel Women’s Initiative,
whose mission is to create “a united effort for peace with justice and
equality”. Their collaborative efforts speak to the urgent need to
resist further militarism, to reclaim peace, democracy and justice, and
to restore human dignity as a principle across the world. These women,
part of an elite few honored by the Nobel Committee, are using their
visibility and prestige to amplify women’s contributions to peace.
Examples include Leymah Gbowee who mobilized women in Liberia to bring an end to the brutal civil war
by physically forcing opposition leaders to sit down for peace talks.
Similarly, in Colombia, Patricia Guerrero, a lawyer who has fought for
the recognition of forced displacement as a war crime, founded the City of Women where women can live with their families in safety, free from paramilitaries, guerrillas or state security forces.

Since
1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to 96 individuals, of
which only twelve have been women. This unequal balance is particularly
striking when one realizes that Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite,
owed the idea of creating such a prize to the extraordinary Baroness Bertha Sophie von Kuttner.
She was both the inspiration for the idea and a true advocate for
non-violence, peace and unity, calling for a society based on the
principles of Darwin and Spencer that would achieve ultimate progress
though achieving peace. Her novel, Die Waffen Nieder (Lay Down
Your Arms) published late in 1889, was such a compelling indictment of
militarism that it tremendously impacted the reading public. Leaders of
European nations, however, failed to heed her plea for “unity and
peace” in their rush to World War I.

Unlike the dozen women
Peace Prize laureates, who were mostly civil society activists, the
majority of postwar peace prizes have been awarded to male statesmen
and politicians who negotiated treaties, boundary disputes, and in
general promoted “fraternity among nations”, as Alfred Nobel stated in
his will. Yet the dominant theme of militarism is evident in most of
these settlements, many of which quickly collapsed when new tensions
arose. In some instances, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to
individuals whose struggles for self-determination have led to their
being labelled as terrorists by their enemies, includingYasser Arafat, Jose Ramon Huerta, and Nelson Mandela. Others have been active proponents of racism, such as President De Klerk
of South Africa, or stand accused as war criminals, such as Henry
Kissinger, who was instrumental in the secret bombing campaign in
Cambodia that fueled the Cambodian Civil War and the subsequent
atrocities by the Khmer Rouge. The underlying injustices and
inequalities of the Israel/Palestine conflict remain alive, althoughShimon Peres, Yasser Arafat, Anwar Sadat, and Menachem Begin have all been Peace Laureates.

In contrast, the six founders of the Nobel Women’s Initiative are using
their leadership in unique ways to chart an alternative vision of
security and peace, overcoming differences in nationality, class,
religion and faith. As women, they understand all too well what it is
like to be subjected to violence even in times of so-called peace. In
fact, each one’s personal histories tell the tale of the impact of
militarism on women’s lives.

The Laureates, in their various roles - the environmentalist, the human rights lawyer, the aid worker,
the writer, and the community organizer - have chosen to use non-violent
resistance strategies to challenge a dominant worldview where
repression and violence are commonplace. In societies where violence or
force are used by those in power to move an agenda, there can be no
real freedom, human rights or personal safety. Those who are voiceless
will remain marginalized, unable to participate in the mechanisms that
participatory democracy offers.

These women leaders are
taking on facets of militarism, such as the lack of participatory
democracy, which they understand to be far more than just elections. It
includes the rule of law, an active civil society, a free press, and
respect for social, economic and political human rights. And for
democracy to function well, the military must be held accountable by an
elected civilian government. Otherwise, spending on security forces and
armed personnel always trumps expenditures on education, training, and
citizen participation.

The Nobel Women’s Initiative offers
principled, non-violent examples of collective action that can mobilize
and inspire people to work for long-term systemic change. The gathering
in Guatemala comes at a critical moment in the world’s trajectory:
women’s movements the world over have the potential to breathe new life
into a global movement that can resist militarism, reclaim peace and
justice, and restore human dignity to all.

Cambridge Analytica was the tip of the iceberg. openDemocracy is investigating how dark money is influencing what we see, hear and think across the world. We have many fresh leads to chase down, but need your support to keep going. Please give what you can today – it makes a difference.